Is it real or not

[Bill H.]

Makes me wonder if all the "model photos" I've seen over the years were actually models.

[rrebell]

Great site, was smart enough to look at whole thing before making lame comments I later would have regretted. Now there was an o scale site that was a model but you couldn't tell, anyone one have a link ?, I believe they are in the LA area in California.

[don7]

I have seen this site before, so was aware that these were real photos that had been further edited.

I was not at all surprised that people started responding to the thread without even reading through the material provided by the link. All too often people respond with their own off the cuff information/opinions without even checking their facts.

[BlueHillsCPR]

My first thought while looking at the first few images was, either thats the worst broken piece of junk camera I have ever seen or these have been photoshop'd to add the lack of focus etc.

Sure enough, upon scrolling down I saw the pics were doctored to look the way they do and then read the explanation at the bottom.  The horrible focus that seemed to affect everything outside of a small circular area was what looked wrong to me initially.  It was just too bad.  I get a kick out of the responses slamming the camera and/or ability of the photographer...depth of field...

This is the real Port Kelsey I believe... 

[reklein]

I took drawing classes for several years and one of the things we were taught is to blur out details as you rough in your drawing. You do this by squnting until you can no longer see details. I just used to take my glasses off. I think many of us become too obsessed with details and lose the overall impression. I seen a lot of really nice work with drawn or painted on details that work just fine for me.Its a little like trying to count the number of spikes in a tie or bolts in a switch frog when you get run over by the train.

Good one Lillen.

[andrechapelon]

Great modeler, terrible camera.  The thing that immediately tells you they are models is that the range of depth of field is about 2-6", everything in the foreground and everything in the background was out of focus.

Even shooting it using print film with a lower end, interchangeable lens SLR, then scanning a print would make it a more challenging decision.

Obviously the modeler put a LOT of work into the scenes.  Too bad a cheap camera or an inexperienced photographer lessened the effort.

Dave H.

Yup. Those 1:1 modelers are pretty good when it comes to getting every detail right.  Admittedly they are a bunch of rivet counters. You kinda have to be when the rivets are actually used to hold sheets of metal together.

Andre

[highhood63]

Did no one READ the text with the accompanying photos?? did anyone get the authors intention???(it seems not!)   A great take on just how rivet counters don't reallistically look at things.

 Exactly

I just had my own example of this yesterday...a few in our local group was invited to see a Friends layout he had been working on this the past year and had kept it under wraps.  What I saw was a well thought out track plan, a nice collection of Rolling stock and some of the best looking scenery I had seen in a long time.  The two Bevises with me however started giving him all kinds of grief because he used the Woodland scenic Mod U Rail system, they called shake and bake Railroading and kept asking where was Thomas?  The funny thing is that layout looked ten times better than the grandiose yet barely started Bench work jungle these guys had.

I just pointed out to the guy that the two Rivet counters were morons, and that John Allen, David Barrow heck even Tony Koester have talked about and even used most of the basic principles he was using, those two went back to their perspective caves, I stayed and had  an extremely enjoyable operating session, in the end for me at least that's what it's all about.

[simon1966]

It appears that he made his point!  A very interesting approach.  Once I realized that the images were of real scenes I found myself going back and forth between the doctored images and the originals.

[tatans]

Did no one READ the text with the accompanying photos?? did anyone get the authors intention???(it seems not!)   A great take on just how rivet counters don't reallistically look at things.

[dwRavenstar]

Scanning down through the offered pictures and reading the explanation at the bottom of the page leads me to believe that he had altered pictures of real scenes to create the impression of a modelled scene.

The things that made them "obvious" shots of models taken by an inexperienced cameraman with a faulty camera seem to have been created on purpose to create exactly that response.

Interesting, both the effect and the response to same.

dwRavenstar 

[jeffrey-wimberly]

In this case I think it's the other way around. Thake a photo of a real scene, make a few changes to the lighting and focus and it can look like a photo of a model scene complete with the short depth of field.

[lvanhen]

It was probably shot with a film camera with the lens "wide open", i.e. the widest possible aperture and a fast shutter speed will yeild a very short depth of field, especially in close-up work.  A tripod, stopping down to f16 or f22 would increase the depth of field, but would require a much longer exposure time.  He probably used a good camera - a "terrrible" camera would not have yielded the sharpness evident in the narrow band that is clear.

[dehusman]

Great modeler, terrible camera.  The thing that immediately tells you they are models is that the range of depth of field is about 2-6", everything in the foreground and everything in the background was out of focus.

Even shooting it using print film with a lower end, interchangeable lens SLR, then scanning a print would make it a more challenging decision.

Obviously the modeler put a LOT of work into the scenes.  Too bad a cheap camera or an inexperienced photographer lessened the effort.

Dave H.

[Lillen]

Hi,

 

Look at these pictures.

 

Impressive:

 

http://www.port-kelsey.com/?p=627

 

Magnus